Tony Szamboti Discusses his WTC7 Discovery

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 15, 2016.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tony Szamboti discusses his latest discovery involving an analysis done of WTC 7 during a lawsuit, and his presentation at a university in New Jersey in November and the pressure the university faced as a result of hosting him.

    ARUP (an engineering group) did an analysis of the collapse of WTC7 for a lawsuit (Con Edison/Aegis Insurance vs World Trade Center Properties/Cantor Engineering) regarding negligence. In their analysis, ARUP conducted a simulation which included the structural components that NIST deliberately omitted in their WTC7 report. ARUP showed in their FEA that the girder does indeed get trapped in the side plate and can't travel per NIST's claim, rendering NIST's column 79 theory impossible. ARUP's claim is that the beam did not expand but rather sagged and pulled causing the collapse initiation. Another person named Nordenson, a professor at Princeton University showed that there would be a cascading failure. Szamboti analyzed Nordenson's claim and found that Nordenson used a point load for the girder assembly that resulted in an infinite stiffness claim, which of course is impossible.

    So we have two issues, ARUP contradicts NIST using data that NIST omitted and Nordenson uses bogus analysis to claim cascading failure. The interview can be found below:

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/114219
     
  2. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tony is truly impressive. He used to debate those who believe the official story in another forum called Sci Forums with me and a few others on his side (psikeyhackr, who is in this forum, for one). I have never seen anyone with such a deep knowledge of structural engineering.
     
  3. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Time to first lie: the pic.

    [​IMG]

    This image is deliberately misleading as Tony is quite aware of the collapse lasting 18 seconds.

    It looks like Tony is still having trouble understanding the collapse mechanism. Oh well, he'll never learn.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any fool with a pair of working eyes and a fully functional brain can count (or approximate) the number of seconds between the moment the roof line descends to the point it hits the ground using any available video of the collapse of WTC7. The image perfectly represents the global collapse time of WTC7 from roof line to ground.

    Given your alleged understanding, I understand why you would make that claim.

    From you? No I don't blame him, no one will either.

    When it comes to choosing between Tony's points and yours, it's no choice at all, you're nobody and have done nothing other than to distract from any legitimate discussion on 9/11. Tony has written many well detailed logical scientific papers on the subject, as well as been interviewed many times.
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
  6. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We both know the origin and intent of this pic. Sorry, but not even a nice try. I'm not fooled by rhetoric.

    It's not the 'global collapse' at all. The 'global' collapse started 12 secs+ earlier. Please see my many posts on the subject for clarification, or have you forgotten already?

    Yes, it's obvious to all but the cult faithful. The pic is intended to deceive, and we both know it. ;)

    Truther snark noted. No, I meant from the science sites like Metabunk and ISF. I suppose in your zeal to lob snark you didn't consider that obvious possibility.


    Truther snark noted. Physician, heal thyself.

    LOLOL. Peer reviewed by other cranks. It's a shame for 9/11 truth that Tony's junk doesn't fool professionals.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes we BOTH sure do don't we?

    And I'm not fooled by you so the feeling is quite mutual.

    Maybe it actually started when the building was first built, you never know.

    No thanks, there's nothing you ever posted that requires my review.

    Your posts are not worth remembering.

    What "cult" is that, the OCT religion you pray to?

    (the rest is not worth commenting on, same garbage as above, which wasn't worth commenting on either)
     
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it started 12.5 seconds prior to that indicated by the fraudulent pic. But you mustn't let that interfere with a cool story I suppose. After all, your agenda is the promotion of lies.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can pick any time you like, it's irrelevant, I don't care, I don't believe anyone does. You can also claim the pic is a fraud if it makes you feel better, I don't care and I don't believe anyone does either.

    The video and the photo taken from the video speaks for itself, no one needs any explanation from you and the only "story" is what's plainly obvious. In fact, no one needs any explanation from anyone as to what anyone can see for themselves, it is what it is.

    The difference between you and I is I don't need to explain what's obvious to anyone because I don't have any agenda other than to try to get at the truth about 9/11. OTOH it looks like you feel you must explain because it's you who really has some kind of agenda.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No further comment required.
     
  11. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reality is that the time was actually 18 seconds plus. That's the fact of the matter. Fantasies don't count in the real world.

    Absolute rubbish. Stop trolling me with your crap.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Baiting noted.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following is a recent presentation/webinar by Tony Szamboti explaining some intricate details about the collapse of WTC7 and the many contradictions/falsifications that were found in NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC7. Some of these were exposed and contradicted by ARUP (an engineering firm) in a lawsuit.

    An Objective Look at the Collapse of WTC 7” by Tony Szamboti

    [video=youtube;oFEMi617B6Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEMi617B6Q[/video]

    There are a couple of claims in this thread that were also addressed in the video.

    The above is clearly not true because Tony points to a graphic at 15:00 into the video showing the collapse time was 7 seconds. At about 32:40 Tony describes the East Penthouse collapse as a separate event from the the global collapse of the building itself. This is also for those who believe NIST's claim that there was an interior collapse that was initiated by the failure of column 79 and lasted about 10-11 seconds before the walls started to come down. He also shows why this is impossible as the West Penthouse came down along with the roof line at the start of the building descent as can be clearly seen in any WTC7 collapse video. If there was an interior collapse as NIST hypothesized, the West Penthouse would have disappeared into the interior several seconds prior to the initiation of the roof line descent.

    This statement is absurd on its face because Tony describes the many issues with NIST's collapse mechanism theory in quite a bit of detail.
     
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's wrong. It is not a separate event, that's ridiculous. I have posted much material that contradicts his inane assumption. We'll see when he takes it to Metabunk, if he has the stones.

    That misunderstands how the interior collapse travelled from east to west. I have supplied ample material to support this in the past. I'll let you know the results if he takes it to Metabunk. He usually does.

    He clearly is still having problems understanding the collapse, as he doesn't realise that the interior collapse travelled from east to west. I'll keep you informed if he takes it to Metabunk, which he usually does.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is you are nobody with no standing. Tony Szamboti's credentials can be easily verified. So when it comes to credibility, one has to weigh whether to take the word of an anonymous internet jockey armed with an opinion and a keyboard (and likely some kind of agenda) calling a professional's opinion "inane" over that of a credentialed person who is in a position to know.

    See above, same applies.

    Ditto, don't bother though, I'm not that interested. Tony's presentation was highly detailed, professional and given his track record (or even not), highly credible. Regardless, I don't really even need Tony to know that WTC7 was destroyed via controlled demolition. The interior collapsed at the same rate as the exterior (more or less), at a rate indistinguishable from free fall, at least for the first 100 ft (8 stories). But even if it was off by fractions or even a couple of seconds, it really doesn't matter, no fire, damage or both can cause what happened to WTC7, that's totally absurd and NIST's clowns involved with any of the 9/11 reports are still all a bunch of criminal frauds.
     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from authority fallacy. The fact remains that Tony doesn't understand the collapse sequence. All your empty noise won't change that.

    Nothing of merit then, just fallacies and noise?

    I know. The 'truth' is immaterial in truther circles-that has been obvious for years. It's just a propaganda game run by scammers.

    But wrong. Argument from authority fallacy. Metabunk will sort out his failings.

    Absurd to say the least.

    Not entirely correct. The collapse sequence lasted for over 18 seconds, free fall was noted for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark. The interior began to descend 12 seconds prior to that represented by the AE911T meme in the article. Therefore, it is not indicative of a CD.

    Yes, AE9/11T truth can't let the facts interfere with the cash flow. There's those double standards of evidence again. LOLOL

    That is nothing more than a argument from incredulity and 'x' amount of unfounded noise. You, nor anyone else has been able to prove the fraud claim, so it can be dismissed as mere libel.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I do have a problem with the NIST report as it does not address the foundation of WTC 7 ... the energy of the 2 towers falling must have had an impact on the pilings supporting the foundation of WTC 7 ... that much weight coming down must have had an impact on the pilings supporting #7 ... the energy had to blow through the surrounding foundation supports ...

    the energy had to go somewhere ...
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed, but how would one quantify it? We have seismic reports that do not show explosives going off before the collapse, but how would we ascertain the energy from that data?
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please post something I can use for an intelligent discussion about 9/11, thanks, none of the above is usable or even remotely intelligent, it is what you like to call "noise".
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that the only problem you have with it? For example, NIST's WTC7 report (theory) relies on omitting several key structural components and erroneous data that ARUP corrected in their analysis. Does that present any problem to you?
     
  20. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fallacious points and poor reasoning equal 'x' amount of noise in my book. Perhaps if you raised the level of your responses a little, you may find the material you're looking for.

    You cannot disprove the following...:

    "Not entirely correct. The collapse sequence lasted for over 18 seconds, free fall was noted for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark. The interior began to descend 12 seconds prior to that represented by the AE911T meme in the article. Therefore, it is not indicative of a CD."

    ...so you respond with attacks. I don't consider that to be an effective rebuttal, but thanks for trying.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No, as it doesn't affect the outcome of the report. Can you demonstrate where these omissions may have affected the result of the report? I'm very interested in your scientific examination of the material and how you arrived at the 'fraud' conclusion?
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't need to prove or disprove anything to arrive at my opinion, especially not to you. My opinion was arrived at about 12 years ago and everything I've learned since has only reinforced my opinion.

    No I responded with what I feel is a genuine statement about you but you're right, 9/11 isn't about you, you're just a distraction.

    Based on the history of your posts, what you consider or not is irrelevant to me.

    Deliberately omitting critical structural components renders any report phony or a fraud at best and criminal in this case since it is about the worst terrorist attack on US soil in modern history and that has enormous consequences. Your opinion that it doesn't affect the outcome of the report is grade school mentality easily contradicted by the scientific method, a universal standard. In any case, the question was not directed at you, it was directed at a poster who claimed he had a problem with the NIST report. I was just curious to know if he found the omissions to be a problem or if he felt there were other problems with the NIST report. I didn't ask you because you religiously defend NIST's methodology and their report, so there is no need to ask.

    I don't need to or have any incentive to do that for you, it's already been done by appropriate credible experts, including Tony Szamboti as well as others. There are quite a few links available including the one I recently posted, but if anyone is interested, I can certainly post them. They are quite numerous.

    No you're not, don't be silly. See the first sentence in response above and my many opinions in this and other posts as to how and why I arrived at that conclusion, something you really have no interest in other than to be a contrarian for the purposes of your agenda.
     
  22. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I'm familiar with the tactical evasions.

    Ad hom noted. Please keep your extrapolations about me to yourself, and try to focus upon the subject.

    Ad hom noted. Please keep your attention on the subject and not me.

    So, you can demonstrate that the NIST 'deliberately omitted' material. I await your response.

    So you can demonstrate your point with the scientific method? Excellent. I await your response.

    Irrelevant in a public forum.

    Immaterial. Can I not ask a question?

    I'm just curious as to why you can't prove your claim of fraud?

    Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. I am an atheist who employs logic and reason, and I in no way resemble your vapid judgement.

    And that is what I'm contesting. Can you not support your position? There's those double standards of evidence again.

    Ad hom noted. Please keep your extrapolations about me to yourself, and try to focus on the material.

    Would you be interested in trying to set up a debate on this forum between Tony and Ozeco41? I'd be willing to talk to Oz regarding this. Would you be able to contact Tony?
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not going to respond to any of the rest of your post so I'll just address the above. I've had my share of discussions with Oz and I'm quite familiar with his tactics so no thanks. In any case it wouldn't be anything I'd be interested in even if that never happened. My opinion on the destruction of the 3 towers has been what it was since I was first made aware of the details of the destruction of the twins and especially WTC7 back some 12 years ago and not only has it not changed but it has been reinforced over the years. Barring damage to my neurons, nothing is going to change that.
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So ARUP supports NIST in that the beam came off the seat, just not the way NIST says it did? Do I understand you correctly? Exaclty how does ARUP, stating that the beam came off the seat, just as NIST concludes, invalidate the column 79 theory?
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was an invalidation in cause, not effect. NIST's theory claims thermal EXPANSION caused the failure of column 79 (a pushing effect), ARUP's theory claims it was sagging that caused column 79 to fail (a pulling effect), two opposing/contradictory theories that yielded a similar result. The biggest difference is that NIST deliberately omitted several structural components and modified actual data to try to make its theory work while ARUP included those components. Go through Szamboti's video if you're really interested, he explains it better and in more detail than I can and has the proper standing/credentials, I don't. Either way, neither theory is provable or reality since WTC7 was CD'd. NIST's theory is an absolute fraud. Manipulating/omitting data to try to arrive at a preconceived conclusion is not just scientific fraud it's criminal fraud as it pertains to 9/11.
     

Share This Page